Back in 2013, I published an article in the journal Paranthropology in which I discussed how the UFO phenomenon, such as it is, has the hallmarks of a modern mythology in that the so-called phenomenon exists primary because “investigators” have forced a narrative onto events that can be better explained in other ways. As I wrote at the time, the various parts of the UFO myth, such as sightings of lights in the sky, encounters with strange creatures, and sexual experimentation, had historically been considered separate and only merged together in the middle twentieth century. These facts have been weighing on the minds of Nick Redfern and Micah Hanks, both of whom published articles in the last 24 hours moving themselves about two-thirds of the way toward my position. They aren’t there yet, though: Both sill think that something paranormal is going on

Before reading my comments here, I’d like to encourage everyone to have a look at my 2013 article so that I don’t need to repeat at length my analysis of the competing UFO hypotheses or the list of qualifiers. For those who do not want to read my piece, I’ll reiterate here that nothing in the discussion below can disprove the existence of interdimensional beings; instead, the logic of my argument as laid out in 2013 only renders them redundant to the point that their presence is unnecessary to explain the so-called UFO phenomenon. I would be interested in hearing Hanks or Redfern offer a counterargument to my analysis of the UFO phenomenon.

Let’s start with Redfern, whose views are the less developed of the two. Redfern explains that over the past two decades he has gradually abandoned the idea that UFOs and their occupants are extraterrestrial in origin, adopting the “ultra-terrestrial” view of John Keel and Jacques Vallée that the beings are supernatural shape-shifters who merely appear to be aliens. (This view is derived from Theosophy, whose beings from parallel lunar and Venusian dimensions stand behind the so-called ultra-terrestrial hypothesis.) He bases this on the “evidence” gleaned from the stories of alleged witnesses to alien activity and UFO abductees, all of which is of course highly suspect and unsupported by physical evidence. The same evidence, for example, on the basis of Roman mythology (e.g. Ovid, Metamorphoses 8:621-96) could equally well support the existence of the Roman gods if you chose that as your belief system. In other words, lacking proof, the claim tells us more about the culture of the claimant than about the reality it pretends to describe.

Redfern argues that the descriptions we have of alien beings strongly suggest that the creatures are going out of their way to put on a show for us, acting out the role of “scientist” and telling contradictory and overly helpful stories about where they come from and why they’re here. “But, they all seem perfectly comfortable with the Earth’s gravity, temperature, oxygen levels, etc. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd?” he asks. Well, yes, but you don’t need to propose trans-dimensional beings to explain that when more prosaic explanation such as altered states of consciousness, cultural expectations, and fraud better fit the evidence, with many fewer assumptions.

That’s one reason that it is frustrating to see Redfern write that “Gods, angels, demons, the ‘little people,’ and – today – aliens: it’s all one and the same” without recognizing that all of these creatures are more likely to be fictitious than “real” in an objective sense, products of altered states of consciousness rather than travelers from other realms. It’s hard not to think that Redfern’s view, like that of Keel and Vallée, simply externalizes an internal phenomenon, searching the physical world for evidence of the imagination. Keel and Vallée wrap their ideas in pseudoscientific appeals to interdimensional beings, but ultimately they leave no way to distinguish between extraterrestrials, beings from another realm, or Jupiter and Mercury popping down from Olympus to test our morals. As such, they are imposing a cultural reading—based in a pop understanding of what “science” means—on stories.

On a similar note, Hanks, who is soon meeting with Redfern to map out an approach to ufology over coffee, has concluded that there is too little physical evidence to support the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft. He even comes close to my position when he feints toward understanding that the various facets of the UFO myth may only be connected in the minds of ufologists, and that the UFO phenomenon may be nothing more than a cultural expression. Unfortunately, he lacks the courage of his convictions and doesn’t take the idea to its logical conclusion. Instead, he takes a swipe at skeptics and insists that there is a UFO phenomenon, even if he is unable to define it or present evidence for it: “For the modern skeptic, this lack of clarity on the subject is roughly equivalent to no subject at all, rather than an apparent phenomenon that remains ambiguous.” He concludes that the only way to solve the mystery is to “think outside the box.”

And there is the problem: Hanks is trapped deeply within the “box” because he can’t divorce the study of the modern UFO phenomenon (however we define it) from the UFO culture in which he participates. To put it in the more formal terms he’s fond of using to obscure his lack of intellectual rigor, Hanks cannot distinguish between etic and emic approaches to ufology and mistakenly concludes that emic views, originating within the UFO culture, are as likely to be true as etic approaches, originating from outside the UFO culture, despite what he admits to be at least five decades of failure of those emic approaches to yield results. The “UFO phenomenon” is only a singular mystery within UFO culture; historically and academically, its various overlapping facets are not necessarily connected except in the minds of believers. As I wrote in 2013, to find the “answers” one must escape the mindset that the post-1961 UFO myth is necessarily unitary rather than a collection of partially related or unrelated parts thrown together by convenience, a cultural expression that gives shape to visions from altered states of consciousness and ambiguous physical events that aren’t otherwise connected to each other.

Hanks decides that there is “nothing truly conclusive” about the UFO phenomenon, but that he essentially agrees with Jacques Vallée, whose views I specifically challenged in my 2013 article. On the plus side, Hanks is coming ever closer to the understanding of UFOs that I and many skeptics share. On the down side, if it took fifty years’ worth of failed ufology to get him that far, we may have a long wait before he realizes that interdimensional trickster gnomes are as redundant to understanding UFOs as phlogiston was for understanding fire.

As a UFO nuts and bolts believer, it saddens me to observe more and more commentators going over to the PSH (psychological hypothesis) as opposed to the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis.) Sure, it is obvious that the bulk of UFO stories probably fall into the psychological realm, without substance, but certainly a core of experiences remain for which a psy explanation is very unsatisfying. Perhaps the growth of the PSH is due to the human frustration of being confronted with a mystery that still has not been solved (at least publicly) so we humans invent an explanation to assuage ourselves, just as we have with the whole worldwide religion industry.

Reply

Clint Knapp

4/7/2016 11:55:34 am

So, I have to ask; exactly why are you a "nuts and bolts" UFO believer?

I used to think it within the realm of possibility, myself. My introduction to the whole idea was The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore - a book I was given by a friend in junior high because his parents wouldn't let him keep it.

Beyond this obscenely famous and over-wrought conspiracy theory, though, I haven't seen much in the way of a reasonable argument for any "nuts and bolts" craft. The usual cases beyond that thrown out by believers and researchers alike all tend to fail in one glaring manner: there are no nuts or bolts of alien craft to actually put forth as evidence.

Even ignoring the usual travel-time argument difficulties, the physics of interstellar travel, the lack of any significant evidence that any bodies in our own solar system have signs of advanced life, and the preponderance of stories like those of Betty and Barney Hill and other "abductees" in their vein who would follow suit producing fanciful stories with no actual evidence - what is left for the "nuts and bolts" argument to be made?

Reply

orang

4/7/2016 12:48:44 pm

there are just too many ongoing sightings where the UFO can be resolved into a structured looking craft for me to dismiss the phenomenon as simply a psychological aberration. but i am not going to go through the effort to collect and communicate really good events to try to convince anyone that the phenomenon is real and worth serious study. mankind's reaction to this phenomenon is woefully defective and inadequate. please read this essay by Richard Dolan which lists 12 good UFO events.

http://www.afterdisclosure.com/2012/07/real-majestic-twelve.html

Clint Knapp

4/7/2016 01:20:25 pm

I read the article in question, and am familiar with Richard Dolan's work in the broad strokes as a once-regular listener of Coast to Coast (both pre and post-Noory). Unfortunately, my third shift schedule has made keeping up with any appearances he's made on Art Bell's Midnight in the Desert (I gave up on C2C a couple years ago) has become impossible in the last six months.

Perhaps I simply see these reports in a different light. What I see when I read a snippet of a report (and note that Dolan does not provide full texts of these documents) as presented, or a summary of it, is a governmental body doing its due diligence to record and investigate the claims made by individuals working for it.

When further evidence fails to arise from a report of so-and-so-officer-of-such-and-such, these reports reach the inevitably inconclusive end and are put aside. Only then do the theorists digging them up cry conspiracy, cover-up, or secret knowledge swept off to dark hallways and hidden bunkers.

It should be the duty of any publicly funded organization, such as a branch of the military, to report on and investigate the claims its members profess, so having such documentation does not surprise me at all.

What is still lacking, however, is anything beyond the hearsay. That deficit, therefore, relegates these sort of documents - regardless their source - to the same level of credibility as the average abductee who held their own space-baby hybrid.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:12:18 pm

Clint Knapp,

>>Even ignoring the usual travel-time argument difficulties

There are no such difficulties.
Belief has no boundaries.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:27:00 pm

>>obscenely famous and over-wrought conspiracy theory

About as crazy as the claim that chimps engage in religious rituals !!

Rose McDonald

4/9/2016 03:34:46 am

I will completely abandon my belief that the whole UFO culture is the product of delusional thinking and a gigantic hoax perpetrated on millions of people world-wide, if anyone in the UFO community can show me one concrete piece of proof that UFOs and aliens are real.

You say: "...it is frustrating to see Redfern write that “Gods, angels, demons, the ‘little people,’ and – today – aliens: it’s all one and the same” without recognizing that all of these creatures are more likely to be fictitious than “real” in an objective sense, products of altered states of consciousness rather than travelers from other realms...."

That's not correct at all. I fully recognize the possibility that they could be fictitious. I just don't buy the idea they are all fictitious. I still think "something else" is going on. What and why? Those are the big questions.

You say: "Hanks, who is soon meeting with Redfern to map out an approach to ufology over coffee..."

Er, not exactly: me, Micah, and and Lyle Blackburn met up last night to do Kyle Philson's and Cameron Hale's radio show. Most of which was on Cryptozoology. I didn't see any coffee though. It was a night of booze.

"Something else" is rather broad; it could encompass virtually anything. I think we need a more rigorous set of criteria to evaluate whether that "something" has a basis in reality outside of our cultural expectations.

But, that's because (in my view) we're dealing with something that is so difficult to comprehend and define, in terms of what it is and its motivations.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:13:52 pm

>>>dealing with something that is so difficult to comprehend and define

The allure of mystification. The parallel to this exists in all religions.

Dick Nedfern

4/7/2016 12:55:39 pm

Until you can provide evidence that is testable, a hypothesis that is falsifiable, or anything better than arguments from authority (“Some really smart guy who won {insert super impressive science award here} believes that aliens from the Zeta dimension are among us to steal our precious bodily fluids!”) or a populist argument (“{insert unsupported number here} percent of the population are certain that the Great Gazoo spies on them in the shower!”), you really have nothing of substance to say or to add here.

In short, TL:DR.

Anyone catch the opener with my beloved Red Sox losing yesterday?

Reply

Rose McDonald

4/11/2016 01:08:12 am

Dick Nedfern:
What would we do without guys like Redfern, Tellinger, Sitchin and Hancock to hack up the 21st Century version of fairy stories? And let's not forget those sterling theorists, Tsoukalos and Pulitzer. I thought I'd die of ennui when the Hoax of Oak Island finished the season. But, here we are, tilting at windmills again. Huzzah.

Uncle Ron

4/7/2016 12:23:16 pm

Both the Paranthropology article and today's blog are very well argued, thank you.

Trans-dimensional whatever is very popular in science fiction and fringe science. What has always flummoxed me is what, exactly, is a "dimension" in this context? Is it even possible for "beings" to exist outside of our known three dimensions? If so, could they visit our dimensions?

Reply

titus pullo

4/7/2016 12:24:38 pm

So let me get this straight. An alien culture somehow travels between the stars and then just tries and watch us...at night they turn on lights in their craft so we can't see them? Sure. They can be seen by radar even through we have stealth technology but they don't.

Don't know about you but if I had to endure a long journey the last thing I would do is to not land not the White House and say "hi" do

Reply

Clint Knapp

4/7/2016 12:57:58 pm

I think that's what's been my biggest issue in the whole ordeal: UFOlogy in general has taken a sort of stance where abductees reinforce the notion that the E.T.s have a (sometimes blatantly stated) United Federation of Planets approach to dealing with us.

Observation without interference. As though "they" are simply waiting for us to be worthy of first contact, but not entirely above the occasional limited contact where special people are considered.

Countless are the tales of abductees who've been taken in order to give them special knowledge, cure their various maladies, or deliver messages of peace and love - and so too the stories of limited intervention to prevent us from nuking ourselves into oblivion. Yet, when it comes to producing physical proof of their existence, any manner of excuses are given - most of which seem bent toward singling out those who've had these experiences as special and above "normal".

It doesn't compute.

Reply

DaveR

4/7/2016 01:39:38 pm

I've always felt the same way. An alien culture has managed to design and build a vessel capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, zipped across the galaxy and then, does nothing. To cover the vast distances in space you would need to go magnitudes faster then light speed to make the trip and return in a single lifetime.

So they get here and then hide, gut some cattle, or abduct and perform some probing on a few poor people. I could see observing us as a lesser species, but after how many hundreds, or thousands of years depending on who you talk to, the aliens would know pretty much everything they would need about humans and then make contact.

Reply

Uncle Ron

4/7/2016 02:55:45 pm

"the aliens would know pretty much everything they would need about humans and then make contact" - or run like hell. :-)

Ken

4/7/2016 03:31:02 pm

Not strictly true. If you believe in relativity as most 'mainstream' scientists do, you can get anywhere in the universe in short order if you have enough propulsive energy. As far as those on the moving ship are concerned, they can in fact travel faster than light speed. As far as those of us here on earth (or on the travelers home planet) are concerned, the moving ship is only approaching the speed of light. From the travelers point of view, they make the trip in short order. Of course when they go home - their planet will be years (or centuries) older. (Time dilation). So interstellar travelers most likely only plan to go one way. Its all relative.

To see a fully scientific exposition of interstellar travel, see Paul Hill "Unconventional Flying Objects".

It doesn't sound real, but its true. Unless of course Einstein was wrong.

DaveR

4/7/2016 03:43:06 pm

Ken,

There have been experiments proving Einstein was correct. Clocks flying at high rates of speed tick at a different rate. The problem is that the mass of the ship traveling near the speed of light would become so massive and require so much energy it's mind boggling. Getting to 99.999% is fine, but when you hit the speed of light you will become energy, in theory, so there is no way to travel faster than the speed of light. I read there is mathematical equation demonstrating a warp drive is theoretically possible, but that technology is centuries away, if it's every even doable. And that's what interstellar travelers will need, a ship that can circumvent the cosmic speed limit to travel such great distances.

Ken

4/7/2016 05:14:12 pm

Only from the point of view of the stationary observer. As far as the travelers are concerned, they just continued to accelerate until they reached 4c (or whatever). Of course to do that you would need to tap "free energy" which may or may not be possible.

DaveR

4/8/2016 08:44:36 am

That's the issue, no known technology or energy source is available to propel a ship to the speeds needed to cover cosmic distances. Voyager 1 has been at it for almost 40 years and in 2012 entered inter stellar space. That's 40 years and it's barely out of our solar system.

Time Machine

4/8/2016 07:51:54 pm

>>>no known technology or energy source is available to propel a ship to the speeds needed to cover cosmic distances<<<

Yes there is -- it's called belief.

I said before that what we are dealing with is not what's in the sky, but with the people making the claims.

Mr. Redfern, as long as you're around: any news on the Collins Elite document?

On other matters: postulating for the sake of argument that UFOs are real, I really don't get why the distinction between the ETH and the UTH is meaningful. In both cases, we're talking about a non-human intelligence, equipped with capabilities far beyond anything we have, screwing with us (in more ways than one). Whether they come from "outer space" or "another dimension" is a matter of semantics.

Mark, yeah I need to speak with the publisher about the document. It may well not be an issue.

Why is the distinction between the ETH and the UTH meaningful?

Well, if we were able to prove that the truly unknown aspect of the UFO phenomenon is not ET-based, and we have never been visited by ETs, that might actually one day lead us down a road that suggests there are no ETs - none at all.

In that sense, we might be totally alone (in terms of life on other planets). So, for me, that makes the distinction as being very meaningful.

>Mark, yeah I need to speak with the publisher about the document.
>It may well not be an issue.

Thanks!

>Why is the distinction between the ETH and the UTH meaningful?
>
>Well, if we were able to prove that the truly unknown aspect of the
>UFO phenomenon is not ET-based, and we have never been
>visited by ETs, that might actually one day lead us down a road
>that suggests there are no ETs - none at all.
>
>In that sense, we might be totally alone (in terms of life on other
>planets). So, for me, that makes the distinction as being very
>meaningful.

If we're being visited by a non-human intelligence, whatever its ultimate origins, then we are not alone. Philosophically, I don't think it really matters whether it comes from another planet or another universe.

Also, it's worth pointing out mainstream astrobiology mostly dismisses UFOs out of hand, but is nonetheless pretty confident that there's alien life out there somewhere. You don't need to believe in UFOs to believe in aliens; all you need to believe in is the Drake Equation.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:16:29 pm

>>>If we're being visited by a non-human intelligence, whatever its ultimate origins, then we are not alone.

Of course, it must have humanoid characteristics as well - and the spacecraft always conveniently look like artwork of homo sapiens on Planet Earth.

Mark, you say: "If we're being visited by a non-human intelligence, whatever its ultimate origins, then we are not alone. Philosophically, I don't think it really matters whether it comes from another planet or another universe."

Yes, but the important thing is that you point out that this is what YOU think. Now, for me - ET or something else - proof of it would still be incredible. But, there are many in Ufology who - I really do think - would be devastated to find we have never been visited by ETs. They WANT the phenomenon to be extraterrestrial. And I'm pretty sure if it was proved UFOs are not ET-based then there would be an inevitable discussion (probably largely thru the media) of what bearing does that have on OTHER searches for ET life, such as SETI etc.

But I'm not talking about what UFOlogists think. I'm saying that there's no real factual distinction between the ETH and the UTH, even if they carry different emotional baggage for people.

If you say "I believe in the UTH but not ETH", what are you really saying? What is the real difference between the two hypotheses, as a scientific matter?

Time Machine

4/8/2016 09:26:47 am

>>"Truth"

A subjective word.
It means different things to different people, pure Rorschach

Only Me

4/7/2016 03:07:53 pm

I think the UFO phenomenon was doomed from the start. After decades of claims about physical craft and first contact with ancient cultures producing no testable evidence, that's when the movement began adopting the trans/interdimensional or incorporeal entities ideology. This, of course, led to the obvious question: How do you distinguish these beings from the old myths of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc.? Once again, ufology didn't have an answer.

I have another obvious question for both the interstellar traveler and trans/interdimensional beings scenarios: Could such beings even survive our planetary conditions? Even Star Trek incorporates a planet classification system identifying those planets that are hostile to human life. Would real extraterrestrials do otherwise?

I'm agnostic-leaning-strongly-towards-skeptic about UFOs, but I don't think our planetary conditions are a real obstacle, even if they come from a radically different world. If they exist at all, then statistically, they've probably been around for millions of years more then we have. Building bodies able to survive on Earth seems unlikely to be a challenge for creatures able to cross interstellar or inter-universal distances.

Reply

Only Me

4/7/2016 04:34:06 pm

It would be more challenging than most would think.

Let's say these beings are from another dimension. It's entirely possible their native dimension is governed by different physics. For example, they might exist in an anti-matter state. Without some means of protecting themselves, contact with a single particle of matter from our dimension would annihilate them.

If they exist in our universe, what if they evolved in the atmosphere of a gaseous planet? Does it follow that because they can travel galactic distances, they can alter their biology to survive on Earth?

A better question would be: If they are more advanced due to evolving before mankind was born, would they really be interested in us beyond a cursory "sensor sweep"?

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:07:04 pm

Only Me,

UFOs originate from the same place as the Angels in the Bible.
They are both from the same source.

Only Me

4/7/2016 06:04:52 pm

Time Machine, if you believe UFOs come from God, you should book yourself on Hanks's show. I'm sure his fanbase will love it!

Assuming - purely for the sake of argument - that there really are aliens/interdimensional beings haunting our planet, then the bodies we see them in may not be their "real" bodies. They could be constructs - robotic, biological, or other - which they pilot like drones. They might not even have "bodies"; they might be computer programs, temporarily loaded into one "body" or another as needed, or something even weirder that we haven't thought of yet. (This might also explain the diversity of appearances - their bodies come in multiple models.)

The fact that they can travel light-years doesn't necessarily mean that they can do that kind of thing - but it seems likely we'll develop the ability to build artificial bodies before we develop the ability to travel to another star, let alone another universe. Certainly it's plausible that, if we can go to Alpha Centauri, we could build ourselves replicas of Alpha Centaurian bodies. So I don't think the fact that they can seemingly survive on the surface of our planet is really a valid objection to the ETH/UTH.

Only Me

4/7/2016 07:20:37 pm

Glad to see you have a grasp on science fiction. If ETs were real, exploring the universe through simulacrums would probably be the best way to go.

While tolerating Earth's environment might not invalidate ETH or UTH, there is a whole lot of assumption, speculation, misrepresentation and even deception that does. Absent real evidence, the whole affair has moved from scientific curiosity to a form of pseudo-religion. In this regard, the excitement over Roswell seems quaint.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 09:15:58 pm

Where there are aliens, there are also angels.,
It's all the same thing, no difference.

Time Machine

4/7/2016 09:20:07 pm

>>>whole lot of assumption

It's so easy..

There are absolutely no assumptions for believers.

Why should there be...

It's all belief, and belief exists without boundaries.

Of course, there are those who want to back things up with "science" but that's really belief posing as "science".

Time Machine

4/10/2016 06:46:07 am

Hitler was right about all you Jews.

Kal

4/7/2016 03:15:14 pm

"If you eliminate the impossible, the improbable, no matter how unlikely, must therefore be the truth."

It seems everyone want to appear special with secret knowledge, especially if there is a sweet book deal, or some fame involved. The UFO people seem to thrive on the premise that they are somehow unique because they have special interest to some ET somewhere, but it is a ruse. They merely desire their 15 minutes of fame.

It doesn't have to be ET. What makes them so special and not someone else?

If ET is going to come down, not just the gray type, or a Reese's Pieces chewing puppet, a tall Man in Black, or a goofy gremlin alien, why does he find a random author who just happens to sell books, or a TV host who happens to deiire his show to get ratings, somehow special?

Aliens might we wiser not to contact them at all.

Actually last summer there was a prime example of UFO hysteria briefly in LA area where an unknown object buzzed the city. It turns out I happened to be in Anehiem that night. I knew what it had to be, not a UFO but some sort of missile entering the atmosphere. Turns out it was a IFO, (identified flying object), a missile that happened to go off course from the launch site. The fringe immediately claimed it a cover up, even though it was a missile. This is the kind of thing they thrive on.

The UFOs that seem to defy all known properties of flight and zip off are just likely explainable, as vapors, other craft that happened to fall, or some other perfectly rational thing. .

That said, in the vast galaxy there have to be others like us. They might even be interested in us as a primitive species. Someone touched on that. I have even touched on that. We would be quite primitive to a space faring race that can master motion, gravity and some sort of warp travel.

Sure there could be aliens, but most stories are just stories. That is fine for them. You cannot prove to them there isn't anything to their stories.

It is probably more likely that aliens aren't interested in the guy or gal selling his book or his TV show.

When we do meet aliens, they are likely not to be what we thought. We will meet them, but not through the obvious almost now mainstream former fringe UFO people.

The aliens will probably just land in a park and begin hawking their version of a space Bible or something. They won't want to probe us, eat us, mate with us or that kind of thing, and they will have no care about whose TV program blog is right or wrong.

Maybe they will sell us their spam because it seems so common.

It won't be something secret. They will just be there.

If an alien landed in LA would it really be noticed? Ha.

Reply

DaveR

4/7/2016 04:21:21 pm

Just like the cover up in Rosewell. My understanding is it was a crashed balloon being used to detect if the Russians were testing nuclear weapons. The balloon crashed and when it was initially reported as a UFO, the Defense Department let the story go on because the true military operation was Top Secret. Even after the Pentagon admitted to the operation, the UDO crowd said the new story was a cover up to hide the truth about the crashed UFO. Either way the UFO people see a cover up.

Reply

Time Machine

4/7/2016 05:09:23 pm

Ah yes, but the person who stated on the radio in 1947 who said it was a crashed saucer left behind a deathbed confession confirming it was a spacecraft.

Some scraps of foil and metal parts. Where was the crater from the impact? Where was the bulk of the space ship?

I know, all hidden in Warehouse 13 or Area 51, or in the reptilian underground super base buried underneath Santa Fe.

Time Machine

4/8/2016 09:33:20 am

The Discovery Channel documentary series "UFO: Down To Earth", Episode Three: “Retrieval” (1996) currently remains the best debunking of Roswell but it was aired before Lieutenant Walter Haut's deathbed confession.

Where the documentary failed was it lacked specifics (as in references in scholarly articles). and that is also missing from all the best documentaries.

DaveR

4/8/2016 10:17:38 am

A deathbed confession isn't proof of an alien craft crashing in Rosewell. It only proves that the LT believed to his dying day that he had discovered an alien space craft.

Time Machine

4/8/2016 10:31:30 am

The LT in question sought and failed promotion. This could explain his radio broadcast and deathbed confession.

"Also, it's worth pointing out mainstream astrobiology mostly dismisses UFOs out of hand, but is nonetheless pretty confident that there's alien life out there somewhere. You don't need to believe in UFOs to believe in aliens; all you need to believe in is the Drake Equation."

Not to be too pedantic, but it's the Drake Equation for a certain range of values. You could, after all, end up solving that equation with N ending up equal to 1. :/

Reply

Arlene Lambe

7/29/2016 11:50:43 am

I think it's all psyops. Get people to look one way and not another, to believe or disbelieve one proposition against another.
Think back, Allen Dulles took control of the UFO stuff when he was in charge of the CIA.
It's a useful meme.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.